Show simple item record

Interval to biochemical failure as a biomarker for cause‐specific and overall survival after dose‐escalated external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer

dc.contributor.authorKapadia, Nirav S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorOlson, Karinen_US
dc.contributor.authorSandler, Howard M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFeng, Felix Y.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHamstra, Daniel A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-21T15:48:17Z
dc.date.available2013-06-11T19:15:52Zen_US
dc.date.issued2012-04-15en_US
dc.identifier.citationKapadia, Nirav S.; Olson, Karin; Sandler, Howard M.; Feng, Felix Y.; Hamstra, Daniel A. (2012). "Interval to biochemical failure as a biomarker for cause‐specific and overall survival after dose‐escalated external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer ." Cancer 118(8): 2059-2068. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/91158>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0008-543Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0142en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/91158
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: After external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer, a short interval to biochemical failure of <18 months has been proposed as a surrogate for cause‐specific survival. Because EBRT dose influences biochemical failure, the authors investigated the interval to biochemical failure in a cohort of patients treated with dose‐escalated EBRT. METHODS: From 1998 to 2008, 710 patients were treated with EBRT (≥75 grays) ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) at the University of Michigan. Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix consensus definition (nadir + 2 ng/mL). A short interval to biochemical failure was defined as <18 months after completing radiotherapy and/or ADT. The associations between biochemical failure, the interval to biochemical failure, and clinical factors with cause‐specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 149 biochemical failures (21%), and short interval to biochemical failure accounted for 14% and 40% of biochemical failures in those with intermediate‐risk or high‐risk disease, respectively. Biochemical failure impacted CSS ( P < .0001) but not OS ( P = .36). However, a short interval to biochemical failure predicted decreased CSS ( P < .0001; hazard ratio [HR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4‐13.0) and OS ( P < .0001; HR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.3‐10.3) when compared with a long interval to biochemical failure. The 8‐year OS was 78% without biochemical failure, compared with 87% with a long interval to biochemical failure ( P = .1; HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4‐1.1) and 38% with a short interval to biochemical failure ( P < .0001; HR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.3‐5.9). On multivariate analysis, a short interval to biochemical failure increased the risk of prostate cancer death ( P < .0001; HR, 18.1; 95% CI, 8.4‐39) and all cause mortality ( P = .0027; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2‐2.1), whereas a long interval to biochemical failure did not. CONCLUSIONS: The relation between the interval to biochemical failure, CSS, and OS was independently validated in patients treated with dose‐escalated EBRT. Further evaluation of the interval to biochemical failure as a surrogate endpoint is warranted. Cancer 2012. © 2011 American Cancer Society. Because biochemical failure does not predict for overall survival after radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer, a short interval to biochemical failure (defined as <18 months after finishing therapy) is tested as a biomarker for both cause‐specific and overall survival. Among 710 patients treated with dose‐escalated RT at the University of Michigan, a short interval to biochemical failure is found to be prognostic of both cause‐specific and overall survival.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherRisk Factorsen_US
dc.subject.otherProstate‐Specific Antigenen_US
dc.subject.otherCause‐Specific Survivalen_US
dc.subject.otherBiomarkeren_US
dc.subject.otherSurrogateen_US
dc.titleInterval to biochemical failure as a biomarker for cause‐specific and overall survival after dose‐escalated external beam radiation therapy for prostate canceren_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan Health System, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Floor B2, Room C490, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐5010en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherCedars Sinai Medical System, Los Angeles, Californiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherAnn Arbor Veteran Affairs Medical System, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.identifier.pmid22009287en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/91158/1/26498_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncr.26498en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCanceren_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBolla M, Collette L, Blank L, et al. Long‐term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study), a phase III randomized trial. Lancet. 2002; 360: 103.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoach M III, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG‐ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 65: 965 ‐ 974.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScherr D, Swindle PW, Scardino PT. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for the management of prostate cancer. Urology. 2003; 61: 14 ‐ 24.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox G, Kaplan G, for the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel. Consensus statement: Guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997; 37: 1035 ‐ 1041.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRay ME, Thames HD, Levy LB, et al. PSA nadir predicts biochemical and distant failures after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a multi‐institutional analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 64: 1140 ‐ 1150.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHorwitz EM, Vicini F, Ziaja EL, et al. Assessing the variability of outcome for patients treated with localized prostate irradiation using different definitions of biochemical control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996; 36: 565 ‐ 571.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHanlon AL, Diratzouian H, Hanks GE. Posttreatment prostate‐specific antigen nadir highly predictive of distant failure and death from prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002; 2002: 297 ‐ 303.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeWitt KD, Sandler HM, Weinberg V, et al. What does postradiotherapy PSA nadir tell us about freedom from PSA failure and progression‐free survival in patients with low and intermediate‐risk localized prostate cancer? Urology. 2003; 62: 492 ‐ 496.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCrook JM, Bahadur YA, Bociek RG, et al. Radiotherapy for localized prostate carcinoma: the correlation of pretreatment prostate specific antigen and nadir prostate specific antigen with outcome as assessed by systematic biopsy and serum prostate specific antigen. Cancer. 1997; 79: 328 ‐ 336.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee WR, Hanlon AL, Hanks GE. Prostate specific antigen nadir following external beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the relationship between nadir level and disease‐free survival. J Urol. 1996; 156 ( 2 pt 1 ): 450 ‐ 453.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceD'Amico AV, Moul J, Carroll PR, et al. Prostate specific antigen doubling time as a surrogate end point for prostate cancer specific mortality following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Urol. 2004; 172: S42 ‐ S47.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceD'Amico AV, Moul J, Carroll PR, et al. Surrogate end point for prostate cancer‐specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 1376 ‐ 1383.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZelefsky MJ, Ben‐Porat L, Scher HI, et al. Outcome predictors for the increasing PSA state after definitive external‐beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 23: 826 ‐ 831.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999; 281: 1591 ‐ 1597.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuyyounouski MK, Hanlon AL, Horwitz EM, Pollack A. Interval to biochemical failure highly prognostic for distant metastasis and prostate cancer‐specific mortality after radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 70: 59 ‐ 66.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuyyounouski MK, Pickles T, Kestin L, Allison R, Williams SG. Validating the interval to biochemical failure for the identification of potentially lethal prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 75: S103 ‐ S104.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDenham JW, Stiegler A, Wilcox C, et al. Time to biochemical failure and prostate‐specific antigen doubling time as surrogates for prostate cancer‐specific mortality: evidence from the TROG 96.01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9: 1058 ‐ 1068.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCharlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40: 373 ‐ 383.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePilepich MV, Winter K, Lawton CA, et al. Androgen suppression adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in prostate carcinoma—long‐term results of phase III RTOG 85‐31. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 61: 1285 ‐ 1290.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoach M, Bae K, Speight J, et al. Short‐term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and external‐beam radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: long‐term results of RTOG 8610. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 585 ‐ 591.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoul JW, Banez LL, Freedland SJ. Rising PSA in nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Oncology. 2007; 21: 1436 ‐ 1454.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWalsh PC, Deweese TL, Eisenberger MA. A structured debate: immediate versus deferred androgen suppression in prostate cancer—evidence for deferred treatment. J Urol. 2001; 166: 508 ‐ 516.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSouhami L, Bae K, Pilepich M, Sandler H. Timing of salvage hormonal therapy in prostate cancer patients with unfavorable prognosis treated with radiotherapy: a secondary analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 85‐31. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 78: 1301 ‐ 1306.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShipley WU, Desilvio M, Pilepich MV, et al. Early initiation of salvage hormone therapy influences survival in patients who failed initial radiation for locally advanced prostate cancer: a secondary analysis of RTOG protocol 86‐10. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 64: 1162 ‐ 1167.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKuban DA, Levy LB, Cheung MR, et al. Long‐term failure patterns and survival in a randomized dose‐escalation trial for prostate cancer. Who dies of disease? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 79: 1310 ‐ 1317.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoon FH, Gardner SL, Danjoux C, Morton G, Cheung P, Choo R. Testosterone recovery after prolonged androgen suppression in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2008; 180: 1438 ‐ 1444.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceD'Ambrosio DJ, Ruth K, Buyyounouski MK, Horwitz EM, Uzzo RG, Pollack A. Prostate specific antigen kinetics in men treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 66: S334 ‐ S335.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.